A New Direction in Coaching

From Life Coaching to Life-as-Art-Coaching

In most general terms, the purpose of life coaching is to make it possible for people to succeed in getting a better life. Individual life coaches have different ways and strategies to help their clients reach goals that will change an unfulfilling life into an exciting, rich and rewarding one.

Traditionally coaching designates relationships between trainers and athletes.  Besides training for specific skills, coaches also help their players discover and initiate ever-improving strategies.  Nowadays, the paradigm of coaching has expanded far beyond sports to include areas like business, career, financial, personal relationships and any other element that is part of life.

The underlying aim of life coaching is for clients to achieve a life that is worth- while in all of its components. So we are talking about "the good life." How do we determine what this is? A simple answer might be that it is the life of someone who has "everything" and is content with what he or she has.  Take it one step further, and ask how do you know if you have everything? It's easy to find out:

Mr. and Ms. X are happy because they each have a good marriage or partnership, good health, enough money to satisfy needs and wants, and enough time to enjoy it all.  What happens when any one of these elements  is lost or at least temporarily missing? If one piece of a jigsaw puzzle can't be found the picture is no longer whole. If several pieces have disappeared, then the joy of working the puzzle turns into little more than frustration.  Stated simply, you only know the real value of what you have when it is gone.

Assuming  major basic needs have been met, life may be okay, but somehow you cannot get away from the feeling it is not all that it could be. Why are some things in your life  exciting and fulfilling while the rest are boring and/or frustrating?  The answer is that the better life is spirited, lively, and above all creative. It does not matter if you are working in a profession, practicing a trade, or making your way as an artist; if you are creatively engaged, you will not feel exhausted at the end of the  day.  The more room there is for creativity in your skills and talents, the more fun it is to do your work, and with work turning into play, your morale stays high-- your workday becomes colorful and rewarding.

Those who have found a fitting career direction are happy and fulfilled because it is easy for them to be who they are in their true nature.  They become better and better at whatever they are doing because their work has become play and play is the pathway to creativity.

Does that mean that those who have a satisfying career are leading a life that is as good as it gets?   Unfortunately this is most often not the case because the creativity which comes into play in one's vocation is all-too-often barely present in other parts of one's life.  A genius in science, an outstandingly successful entrepreneur, a doctor renowned in his or her specialty may have nothing but trouble with relationships with friends, family or partners. Why is the creativity so manifest in one's work simply not present in others parts of one's life?   Why? Because the person's mindset says "the area of discovery exploration and creativity is in my work and nowhere else. The rest of my life is simply something to 'take care of, at best a nuisance, at worst a pain.' "

Having only one part of one's existence alive and exciting while the rest is a wasteland is a wide-spread dilemma.  Life should not be part paradise, part desert.  Yes, the wasteland can be ignored. But wouldn't it be better if it were turned into a garden, a park or a healthy nature preserve? The remedy I am offering is to find ways in which life in all its beauty can be experienced as art. I will support you to find ways to let your creative energies permeate any or all parts your existence.  To help bring this reality into being, I offer my services as your Life-as-Art-Coach.

Open letter to President Obama regarding entitlements

Dear Mr. President,

I wish to thank you for standing strong against the extortion demands made by Tea-Party-led Republicans.   You will not believe how thankful we as Democrats, especially Progressives, are that you finally appear to have turned the corner from being a politician who compromises again and again to one who refuses to cave when it comes to defending the basic principles that our democracy is founded on.

With the main battle having been finished,  however, many of us have become greatly concerned that you may revert to your earlier stances where you seemed to be willing to bargain away some of our most basic rights.  I am speaking specifically of your past tendency of being "reasonable" in regard to "adjusting "  Social Security.  The general take on Social Security on the part of conservatives is that Social Security is an "entitlement" we are not really entitled to.  In the language of conservative Republicans and, unfortunately some Democrats strongly connected to the very wealthy, the e-word is simply a code for Medicare, Social Security and other programs benefitting the public.

Mr. President, it is simply wrong for you to be "flexible"  in regard to Social Security and Medicare, because such flexibility means nothing more than stealing more from funds that belong to us because they consist of money that we have paid plus interest.  Social Security is our insurance program, and insurance programs work on the basis of  premiums paid by members.  It is simply wrong, wrong, wrong for anyone to take the money from an insurance fund and use it for purposes other than what it has been contractually intended for. 

So please, Mr. President, stop using the word entitlements and call a spade a spade, and please realize the fact that using the e-word means stealing from Social Security and that it is wrong to do so.

With best wishes,

Howard Roth

A Second Open Letter to President Obama

I know that the chance that the President will actually get to read this letter is less than minimal, but fractional odds are better than none at all.


Dear Mr. President,

I’m asking you as the head of the executive branch of the federal government to address a source of pervasive anxiety and despair among the people of our country. As a citizen, I feel obligated to alert you to the fact that we who follow the actions of our government cannot avoid recognizing that the constitutional principle of equal justice for all has vanished.

Frontline recently revealed wrongdoings by decision-makers in financial institutions that caused our recent economic crisis. But your administration's Department of Justice has chosen to ignore fraudulent behavior on the part of the leaders of the financial world. It appears that a line has been drawn so that persons whose total worth is in the millions or more are exempt from having to respect and obey laws that apply to every citizen. How can our government be a government of the people, by the people and for the people if laws that exist prohibiting financial deceit no longer apply once a certain level of income and assets has been reached?

I know that as an individual it is natural for you to consider human factors in your actions. As difficult as it may appear to you personally to call to task and ultimately bring to justice persons that you may have come to know in the course of your political career, I am asking you to rise above the ties of friendships and allegiances and to make sure that the Justice Department of your administration does not exempt persons above a certain level of income and assets from being called to account.

Sincerely yours,

Howard Roth

A New Year's Post to Barack Obama

Fot those of you who didn't catch this very short letter to Obama on Facebook, here it is again: 

Dear Mr. President,

I listened to your speech today regarding the fiscal cliff in which you talked about creating balances between the sacrifices made by medicare and social security recipients on the one hand and millionaires and billionaires on the other.  Does it make sense to compare  people sacrificing food, shelter and health care to a  multimillionaire feeling a hardship when he can only afford a 17 million dollar home rather than the 25 million dollar one of his dreams?   Is it right to compare low income families' sacrifices of daily necessities to the "sacrifices" of the wealthy who have to forego some grandiose luxuries?

Sincerely, 

Howard Roth

P.S. I do wish you and your family a Happy New Year1

Climate Change, Science and Politics

Today it is unthinkable to believe that infections are not caused by germs.  In the early 18th century, the general practice among doctors of washing their hands prior to delivering babies for the most part did not exist.  The mortality rate among women dying from childbed fever was around 10 percent or more.  The idea that there were bacteria that caused illness was considered to be fantasy.  It was unheard of that a doctor who was examining a cadaver on an autopsy table in one room would simply be transferring the dead man's germs  to the delivery room and infect the mother giving birth. 

In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis, a young Hungarian doctor working in a Vienna hospital, practiced and promoted the practice of physicians washing their hands before assisting in childbirths.   Although his introduction of a basic measure of cleanliness drastically reduced the rate of childbed fever, the medical establishment, which clung to conservative traditions that considered hand washing to be sheer nonsense, fought Semmelweis in every way possible, ridiculing and humiliating him to the point of destroying his reputation and career.  

It took some decades until Semmelweis was proved right beyond a doubt.  Why so long?  Professional establishments and the general public don't like to change their minds because it is painful to be exposed as being wrong.  Why so?  Those who are proven to be wrong lose in respect and authority.

Today's opposition to well-documented evidence that there is global warming caused by man-made chemical substances put into the environment is very similar to the political opposition in the nineteenth century to the theory that microorganisms cause diseases.

For background on Semmelweis:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Austerity, a Set-up for Pilot Error

On February 12, 2009 Colgan Air Flight 3407 crashed into a house in suburban Buffalo, N.Y., killing 50 people. Eleven minutes after take-off from Newark the crew noticed ice buildup on the plane's wings and windscreen and turned on the de-icing system. The flight continued on autopilot until the final approach when the aircraft's "stick shaker" sounded a strong warning that the aircraft's speed had deteriorated to a dangerously slow rate. Instead of following standard procedure of adding full throttle and lowering the plane's nose, the captain added only 75% power and raised it. This caused the aircraft to pitch up 31 degrees before diving at 45 degrees into a home near Buffalo.

The pilot meant well. He did not want the plane to go down, so he turned its nose upward thinking he would prevent a crash. He was wrong -- tragically wrong. He needed to burn more fuel, expend more energy. Had he gone full throttle and pointed the plane downward, he could have gained the necessary speed to recover from his dangerous stall.

Why did the pilot fail to realize that by raising the front of the plane he would further decrease its perilously low speed? The answer is simple. He lacked competency. Regional airlines practice austerity. To cut costs, the airlines' owners hired cheaper but less knowledgeable pilots. Pilots who lack training and experience cannot fly safely.

To perform any given task, a plane needs to consume energy. Just as a commercial aircraft is a system that cannot function without consuming fuel, a nation's economy cannot remain in good health without money. A plane will no more take off from a runway with an empty gas tank than an economy will pull out of stagnation without money. As Konrad Lorenz stated, "Money is the symbol for energy." People need to get paid to make a living, and if they get paid well, they will live better. Once their standard of living increases, other members of society benefit because with a higher standard of living everyone can afford to pay for services, which in turn gives an additional boost to the economy.

So what about austerity? As with the example of the regional airline's plane that crashed because the owners did not cover the cost for proper training and maintenance, austerity is a set-up for performance failure. Austerity brings with it lack and suffering, and stifles creativity. When people are perpetually worried about how to pay their bills, they lose confidence. Money is necessary for good morale, and good morale is a pre-requisite for good work, good health, rejuvenating play and the kind of expansiveness that makes a society prosper.

Who can supply the money? Where would it come from? Only from tax revenue from sources that are not already oppressed by austerity measures. Look for money among the likes of those who put up millions and millions to bid up art works for little other purpose than to increase their own net worth.

My Favorite Joke (at this Time)

Q. What is your favorite joke?

A. In New York, a hungry guy stops at a hot-dog vendor's stand. The vendor asks him, "What will you have?" The guy answers, "A dog with everything on it." The vendor puts mustard, relish, ketchup etc. on the dog and hands it back to the guy. The guy hands the vendor a twenty-dollar bill and gets ready for the next customer. Before even taking a bite, the man asks the vendor, "Where is my change?" The vendor replies, "Change comes from within…"

Q. Are you sure this is joke? I can't see myself breaking out laughing.

A. Not all jokes will make you laugh out loud. Some will only want to make you scratch your head.

Q. So you are insisting this anecdote really is a joke? Or are we dealing with nothing more than a bit of nonsense?

A. Maybe. But not everything that appears to be nonsense is nonsense. When I first heard this joke, I certainly didn't laugh out loud, but something registered in my feelings. The vendor's reply seems crazy, but you cannot help having that second thought that underneath it all it is not that crazy, that at some level it does make sense.

Q. So what kind of sense does it make?

A. I don't want to answer this one. Explaining a joke kills it. You get more out of this one if you let yourself have that second, third, fourth, fifth and so on thought and see where it takes you.

http://howardthecoach.blogspot.com
http://thewryjester.blogspot.com

Debunking the Myth That Only Private Industry Can Bring Economic Recovery

Conservatives don't want the government to stimulate the economy because they claim that only private enterprise can create a recovery. When progressives point to the New Deal as a successful way of ending the Great Depression, conservatives claim it didn't really work: it was World War II that ended the depression.

The massive unemployment plight did indeed end when men were drafted into the military. As so many of the men were away fighting a war, women who had never worked outside of the home helped keep American factories going. Worries about keeping or getting a job simply vanished after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

So was it private industry that put the country back on its feet economically? No, it was the government that created jobs by asking private companies to produce whatever was necessary to win the war. Yes, private companies manufactured guns, planes and tanks, but the decisions of what resources to apply when and where were made by the Roosevelt administration.

Were corporations allowed to make profits? Yes, but only within reason. Getting rich from the war was generally condemned as "war profiteering." In 1941, then Senator Harry Truman began to travel from coast to uncover corruption on the part of companies involved in war production. President Roosevelt made sure that the government had the money needed by imposing tax rates of 92 percent on incomes over 100,000 dollars (which would be about 1.2 million in today's monetary value.)

The leadership that guided America through World War II, the country's greatest challenge in history, was not the management of a corporation but a government headed by Roosevelt and then Truman. It was under a democratically elected presidency that victory was achieved. The person holding the country's highest office was not a private individual running a corporation, but an elected official accountable to every citizen of the nation.

In the minds of some it may be acceptable for corporations to rule the U.S. if not the whole world. The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that corporations are "persons" may even make it possible for them to wield such power legally. But these persons, having neither body nor soul, will never have the wisdom demanded of human beings qualified to lead the people of a democracy.

Once the war was over, the American economy, no longer fueled by war production, had to be kept from relapsing into pre-war depression. It was the Truman administration's resolute implementation of the Marshall plan that made it possible for the U.S. to have a prospering post-war economy while helping Europe and Japan rebuild what was destroyed in the war. America with its vast industrial base was able to supply the goods and services Europe and Japan needed to rebuild. With a steady demand for U.S. products, America's economy prospered for decades to come.

Austerity is Wrong: Austerity Is Toxic for the Health of the Economy

(This is the body of a letter sent to our Congressman, Xavier Becerra. Xavier Becerra is one of the twelve members of the Supercommittee on Deficit Reduction.)

Austerity moves in the United States and other parts of the world are counterproductive to economic recovery. Austerity takes away money from the middle and working classes, as well as from the poor. If you want to stimulate the economy, you don't take money from people who produce, create and consume. When money is taken away from the middle and working classes and from the poor, money is taken away from the productive segment of the public; the economy rather than being stimulated is ground to a halt. A severe depression will result.

Whereas money in the hands of the wealthy for the most part rests in idle holdings and does little, if anything, for the benefit of anyone.

Representatives sincere about the well-being of the American people should realize that the only motive for the implementation of austerity measures on the part of conservatives is to create economic failure, so that the current administration can be blamed and so that they, the conservatives, can assume power during the next election.

Myth is like Math

Q. How do you define a myth?

A. Basically a myth is a belief system that explains any given process or phenomenon.

Q. What comes to mind are the stories of Greek mythology where phenomena in nature are personified.

A. Yes, God is personified as the ultimate father figure, Zeus, and the Earth is personified as the mother figure, Juno. And there are many others like Aphrodite who embodies sexuality, or Mars who stands for war.

Q. So myth is the means for humans to understand the world. Could one say that myth is an essential element of religion?

A. Yes, it is. But it is not limited to religion. In the Judeo-Christian context, a central belief that can be classified as myth is "Obey the ten commandments and you will be rewarded." In the domain of commerce there are myths like "you cannot go wrong buying real estate", or "in the long run you are always best off investing in the stock market rather than staying in cash."

Q. Don't you think it might be a bit offensive to many religious people to refer to the Ten Commandments as myth?

A. Yes, but only if you use the term myth to imply something is untrue or worthless. No myth is in and of itself true or untrue. Like formulas in math, myths designate abstract elements and their relationships to one another. The truth contained in math may indeed be something untouchable. It is possible to prove the correctness of an algebraic equation within the domain of mathematical relationships. But the question of a formula's validity comes up when applied to situations in the physical world.

Q. I don't quite get it?

A. Take the example of two engaged in a conflict. One has a team of twenty-five lawyers and his opponent has only himself and his partner. According to arithmetic, the one with a team of two has no chance against a team of twenty-five. But while the truth of math that 25 is "more" than 2 is unimpeachable, when the formula is applied to a given reality, the result of the interaction may appear to invalidate the underlying mathematical principle.

Q. But it does not really!

A. You are right. The mathematical statement assumes that any one of the numbers is exactly the same as any other, but when applied to reality each individual unit is in some way different from any other unit.

Q. Okay, that's math. What about myth?

A. Let's stay away from religion for the moment.

Q. Why?

A. Because with religion it is impossible for most people to think analytically. Let's take an example from money and markets. Let's take the myth "you can't go wrong buying real estate in the long run." The myth may be true as long as the reality it is applied to is in an economically stable world, but even here a follower of the myth may fail terribly. An easy example might be that of someone buying an office complex in a tsunami-prone area or within the range of the lava of an exploding volcano.

Q. Okay, what about "the Last Judgment?" Isn't that a myth?

A. Absolutely not if you are a fundamentalist Christian for whom the Bible has one and only one meaning. But you cannot deny that whatever is told as a story is a story, and stories are myth. And when stories are told, people add and subtract whatever they imagine.

Q. You mean like on judgment day when all sinners are being cast into hell where they will burn forever?

A. This is not the time to argue about details, but you have to admit if you ask individuals, each one will see a somewhat different picture. While the myth will have a basic structure, there are as many realities as there are persons. So anyone or no one will know what judgment day will really be like.

Q. But you are not going to deny that there will be a judgment day?

A. Well, if you are a fundamentalist Christian, judgment day is an indisputable truth because this truth comes from God. The myth is not just a myth; it is gospel truth.

Q. Not to be argumentative, isn't it possible for what has been announced as gospel truth not to become reality?

A. It is only impossible if someone's god cannot change his mind. But as the God of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is a living deity and an all-powerful that deity one, He has the capacity to change His mind at any time.

Q. So there might not be a judgment day?

A. There might be or there might not...

Animals, Dervishes and Souls

From the point of view of empirical science it is as yet impossible to prove or disprove that there is such a thing as a "soul." Assuming that souls do in fact exist, it would be interesting to ask if not just humans but also animals have them. A couple of weeks ago I saw the documentary, "The Cove." One of the main points of the film is that dolphins have the intelligence and sense of ethics equivalent to that of humans, and they deserve the same basic respect as humankind. Is it fair to be dismissive of animals just because they see and act in ways that don't make sense to us humans?

Whether observing animals or humans, one should be careful about rejecting as bizarre any behavior that seems to make no sense. Today I saw a youtube video of whirling dervishes, men who spin around in a circle in order to attain spiritual enlightenment. Isn't it unfair to be dismissive of strange behavior simply because we initially perceive it to be pointless or silly?

I believe it is proper to extend the courtesy of not just panning another's misunderstood ways even if that other is an animal. If, for example, we see a dog chasing its tail, can one be ever so sure that in the universe of that dog his spinning in a circle is not some kind of a spiritual quest? According to principles of karma, someone laughing at a dog chasing its tail may find himself being reborn in another life as a whirling dog...

How Oligarchs Grab What is Yours

You may use points from this dialog to explain how oligarchs operate and how they become very comfortable enriching themselves at the expense of the poor and middle class.

Q. Times are getting tougher. European Central Bank economists have called for austerity measures around the world. Why?

A. The story goes, because governments around the world are in the red they cannot do what is expected of them: Things like rescues from natural disasters, law enforcement, keeping up the infrastructure, and last but not least, making sure that the poorest of the poor, even though they may not be entitled to shelter, have enough food to survive.

Q. So it would mean that governments, if they want to remain in existence, need to cut services. A sudden stoppage of all the services would be too much of a shock for any given country. If for example, roads would no longer be repaired, laws no longer enforced, fire fighting no longer available etc., even some of the very wealthiest would be unhappy because if a fire went out of control in a middle class area, the fire might spread to the more upscale neighborhood. So, where can governments cut?

A. As perhaps a majority of the wealthy would not want any cuts on any service that might affect them personally--an example might be the elimination of air traffic control because it would effect the flying safety of private jets--the areas that could be cut are the so-called entitlements...

Q. Like what?

A. Anything that would benefit people of middle and lower income. Food stamps and shelters for the very poor, aid to schools and universities, health care, subsidies to Amtrak, infrastructure grants to small and large communities etc.

Q. Are you trying to say that "entitlements" are services that the wealthy think those with less money are not entitled to?

A. Exactly.

Q. Why? What's the philosophy behind that?

A. It is a philosophy that says the wealthy deserve what they get and that they merit their fortune by being "chosen." As evidence that this is so they assume that people with low net worth are simply not worth as much as human beings and therefore are not entitled to "entitlements."

Q. They don't actually say that?

A. No, but they act it. Even though many of the wealthy have never ever produced anything of value, they assume that they have earned all they own.

Q. You are not being clear.

A. Take, for example, executives in the banking sector. They may have made good decisions in their lending or investments benefiting their institution, or they may have made decisions that ran their bank into bankruptcy. At the end of a year they still collect millions in salary and bonuses, simply because they have made arrangements that as corporate officers they will get paid, not for performance, but for the position they have assumed in the corporation.

Q. Who makes the decisions about how much money executives get and how do the decision makers justify giving high compensations to non-performers?

A. It is the board of directors who decides. Board members also get paid without having to perform. As to giving huge bonuses to non-performing executives, they claim it is necessary to pay such high compensations so that they can compete for top level talent with other corporations.

Q. Doesn't sound too logical to me. Why would they want executives with ever higher compensations to run companies into the ground?

A. Because in today's financial world there is money to be made whether the value of a company goes up or down.

Q. This does not make any sense at all.

A. It makes sense when you begin to understand how derivatives work. Derivatives work like insurance policies. If you take out an insurance policy on a house and that house burns down, you break even when the policy pays off. But if you buy several insurance policies on the same house and it burns to the ground, you win by however many policies you have bought. So where your property value was that of one house, you now have a property value of five houses if you bought five policies.

Q. So holders of the right derivatives make out when sectors of the economy collapse?

A. Yup, and they get away with it because people don't know how derivatives work...

How Corporate Cost-Cutting Makes People Invisible

A Dialog Between Quincy and Arthur

Q. It is January 2011. There is talk about the economy improving because the largest companies in the United States are going to report greater profits. Does that mean that those without jobs will soon be getting back to work?

A. That would be good news, but it is simply not so.

Q. Why not?

A. Because greater profits more often than not mean the company has saved on costs. And what are costs? Perhaps the greatest cost factor generally is the cost of labor. When companies save on the "cost of labor," it simply means they spend less money on salaries and wages. And that means fewer people, both blue and white collar, earning less money.

Q. Yes, it is hard to see how the economy is improving when people have fewer jobs and get paid less. It just does not make sense that when corporations are earning more, people are not better off. Where does the money go that is earned?

A. While some of the earnings translate into dividends for investors, a greater part goes to the top of the company and to its cost-saving base. It is no secret that every year company executives, whether in sectors like banking, insurance or manufacturing give themselves huge sums in salaries and bonuses.

Q. What about that money going to the bottom? Doesn't the staff at the middle and at the bottom also benefit?

A. Well, it depends how you define "staff at the middle and bottom." In a traditional American corporation it meant skilled and unskilled blue collar workers and white collar staff from middle management on down. The salary schedule would be somewhat standardized as the pay at one company would be roughly the same for the same tasks as that of other companies. For a company to remain reasonably profitable, management would strive for reasonable compensation at all levels.

Q. That sounds like everybody would be kept happy, so where is the problem?

A. The problem lies with top management. Ideally, the mission of a business is to serve society through whatever its product or services are while making a profit doing so. In this process small companies are like families, larger companies are like communities ranging from small towns to large cities and so on. Whatever the nature of the community there is a greater or lesser connection between those on top with those at the middle and the bottom. Ideally there is a measure of respect for a person at one level for anyone at any other level.

Q. Looks like you are painting an idyllic picture. So what can go wrong?

A. Communities fail when their members become confused about their priorities. With a business operation two main priorities are contributing to society with products or services on the one hand and earning enough money to keep the business viable. Where decades ago the two elements were somewhat balanced, it is no secret that today making money far outweighs any other priority. So one of the quickest ways for management to increase earnings is to cut as much of the funds going to the middle and lower strata of its workforce.

Q. So how do corporations manage? Wouldn't operations simply break down if most of the workforce were eliminated?

A. Yes, companies cannot survive without a workforce. But at this point in history, an American company can do without an American workforce. At this point you might have guessed how top management keeps operations going without paying the kind of salaries middle and working class Americans are used to.

Q. Well, it's obvious. They simply send the high-paying jobs overseas to China or India, right?

A. That's it--exactly. If you want get your work done cheaper, you outsource. There is nothing easier.

Q. But isn't there an obstacle to laying off practically an entire workforce, how can top management simply get rid of people who have worked loyally for years and years?

A. It is difficult if there is a sense of community within a firm, but there is none. If there is a sense of community, those who have the power to hire and fire hesitate to visit economic disaster upon people they know and feel close to. But with most of today's corporations upper management functions within a gated community, and those who are outside the gates are considered nothing more than a cost factor.

Q. Strange--what does this lead to? What happens when human beings are nothing more than cost factors?

A. There is a major psychological shift. As long as a person is seen as a human being, he or she benefits from a cultural value system: Thou shalt not steal, nor lie , nor above all not kill. But as long as someone is nothing but a cost factor, he can be annihilated quite easily because costs are there to be cut.

Q. So any idea of how many formerly employed humans who were eliminated as "cost factors" there in the U.S.?

A. The official figure is around thirteen million, but it is probably a lot higher because long-term unemployed are no longer part of the statistics.

Q. So what happens to all these people?

A. Some try their very best to get back to work in their area of expertise--if there is nothing where they can apply their skills, they become willing to accept any job whatsoever. If they can't get any kind of job at all, their new economic reality pushes them into becoming invisible.

Q. Hmmm, why invisible?

A. A job or any valid source of income provides dignity. Having neither job nor income brings with it a sense of shame for being seen as someone who cannot function in life. The jobless/incomeless person tends to keep his lack of wherewithal under wraps to avoid embarrassment. More often than not the need to become invisible is met through a life of seclusion.

Q. So what does that mean?

A. Someone whose identity has been annihilated because he was no more than a cost factor that has been cut will have to find a new path in life.

Q. How do you do that? Is there a formula?

A. There is no formula and there is no easy answer. One may look for a clue in two words adopted from the collapse of the Soviet Union: glasnost and perestroika...

How Can We Pull Out of the Recession?

Q. What is a recession?

A. It is a period in which the middle and working class have less money to spend, and as a result, those who earn money when consumers buy things also earn less. As car dealers sell fewer and fewer cars, they have to let go of sales associates, and the sales associates in turn can't afford to buy furniture, and the furniture stores close causing more layoffs etc. etc.

Q. It sounds like the general public is running out of money. If almost nobody has any money, how can the economy keep going?

A. Well, it can't. People draw on their reserves, and once these are gone more and more activity comes to a halt.

Q. What about the government? Can't the government create jobs?

A. Yes, it can. It can create public works projects.

Q. So why can't the government start more and more projects and get people get back to work so that the recession ends?

A. As long as government infuses more and more money into society, there will be more and more activity. And more activity does mean more jobs. More jobs gives people more money to spend. As more is spent more taxes are collected, and with more tax revenue coming in the government can start even more projects with the result that more people get back on their feet.

Q. But there are those who say it's time to pull back on spending to make the economy healthy. What's wrong with that?

A. A society with a bad economy is like a person who is sick. If someone is sick because he or she is starving or dehydrated, it makes no sense to save on food and water just so his personal budget is balanced. If you need to make debts to keep someone alive, you don't ask whether or not money spent on recovery increases size of the person's debt.

Q. Are you trying to suggest the government should simply print more money and hand it out to the public without any limitations?

A. That is not the way to go. The government has incredible investigative and research capacities. A major part of the money lost in the last two to three years was lost through high risk speculation. Speculation is a form of gambling, and gambling there is always a winner and a loser. Government investigators and researchers need to find out who the winners in the financial contest are, and where they are hiding their money.

Q. This just does not make sense. Can you give me one example of who might be a winner in the market collapse we have just seen?

A. Examples of winners are those who made bets that the housing market would fall. Betting in the financial market place is done through derivatives. A speculator buys bonds or funds that pay off in case of a market fall. Once the market has actually fallen, he quietly picks up his cash. Most people don't know such speculators exist, let alone how they operate. The source of the money lost through gambling is to a great extent money gotten from people who listened to deceptive investment advice. Deception is a first cousin to fraud. Money fraudulently acquired is stolen money, and once stolen goods end up with an even unknowing buyer the goods once found are to be returned to the person they were stolen from.

Q. Are you saying that those who gambled against people's investments are in actuality beneficiaries of stolen goods?

A. Maybe not directly within legal terms. But they are benefiting from the hardships that were bestowed on innocent people. Without fraud and deception, the gamblers betting on a market downturn would have had nothing to gamble with. So the government needs to find creative means to get back that which was stolen.

In Defense of Craigslist

One of the activists on a website called change. org succeeded to rally enough support to get Craigslist to shut down its adult services section because it "promotes child sex trafficking." Activists are now promoting a movement to prohibit such internet communications altogether. While I agree with a lot of what change. org promotes, I strongly feel its attack on Craigslist for its adult services is wrong because it encourages the suppression of some very basic human rights.

Yes, child abuse, especially child prostitution is wrong, but it is equally wrong to close down a message center where consenting adults seek other consenting adults to join them for sexual pleasure.

The quest for sexual liberation has been a long-fought battle in the history of western society. As late as the 1950s, the Catholic Church succeeded in getting any scene censored in any movie showing two adults being intimate beyond a closed-mouthed brief kiss. Unmarried people could not get an apartment unless they lied about their marital status. Promiscuity was fought so intensely that people who wanted carnal variety had little choice but to become serial husbands and wives with one divorce after another.

It was in the sixties that sexual liberation made its greatest strides reaching its foremost achievement in 1973 with Roe v Wade when a woman was granted the right to decide who entered her body and which embryo would be allowed to stay in her womb. Eventually both women and men would be given the freedom to have sex with partners of their preferred gender.

As for prostitution, it should be a basic right of any adult as to circumstances under which carnal contact is entered. If a woman or a man decides to take cash for having sex with multiple partners or to attach him or herself to a long-term partner for financial advantages, he or she needs to be recognized as having the right to do so.

We know that there is a potential danger in any given human activity. Dating on campuses is good for the social life of young people, but if someone happens to go on a date with a sexual predator he or she may end up being raped. Medicine that heals can be abused if taken in large dosages. Alcoholic drinks can relax many a social function, but most of us know the tragedies that may result from their abuse.

What is the answer for dealing with potential dangers resulting from human pleasurable activities? Should we outlaw dating because it might result in rape or in STDs? Should we make the use of herbal and pharmaceutical substances so difficult that anyone violating the norm for consumption in the slightest risks incarceration at any moment? Should we outlaw the sale of alcohol and close all bars as was done in the 1920s so as to eliminate the evils of intoxication?

As to the wrongness of human trafficking and child abuse, there is enough legislation in place to deal with transgressions in these areas. Our laws outlawing slavery and protecting children from abuse are adequate if enforced sensibly and judiciously. There is no more need to shut down the adult section of Craigslist than there is to close the bars, casinos and brothels of Nevada. As for the internet, there is so little in the way of safeguards of privacy that catching online criminals becomes easier by the minute.

The right to a life of freedom includes the right to enjoy being "sinful," and there may be few wrongs worse than to deprive people of that right.

Why Raising Taxes on the Wealthy Helps Everyone, Including the Rich

Q. What's the story with tax cuts? Taxes were cut again and again during the Bush II years. The U.S. was supposed to prosper more and more because as taxes were being cut, people would have a lot more money in their pockets. What happened?

A. The tax cuts didn't do much of anything for most people.

Q. Why not?

A. Well, ten percent of the population has seventy-one percent of liquid assets (stocks, bonds and cash holdings). The other ninety percent of the population owns the other twenty-nine percent. But to make it even clearer, assets owned by the lower fifty percent of the population amount to only 2.5 percent of the nation's total. So if you have a general tax cut across the board, the extra money the lower income half of the population gains or loses does not have much of an impact at all.

Q. So what's the message?

A. It does not make sense to tax that lower fifty percent of the population with 2.5 percent of the the total wealth, because practically all of their income is money already in circulation. You need to take the money from the top ten percent.

Q. Why?

A. Although there are investors in the top ten percent whose money is invested in solid companies that produce much needed goods and services, there are also speculators who use other people's hard earned cash to gamble in derivatives.

Q. Do you have any evidence that lowering taxes on the wealthy is bad for the general public's living standards while raising taxes on the rich benefits the whole country?

A. Yes. In the roaring twenties (1918-1929) the top marginal income tax rate (that's the rate paid by the rich) went from 60% on incomes over 100,000 in 1920 down to 25% in 1929. A major part of the money not paid in taxes now went, instead of going to the government, into the hands of speculators who had only one interest: to make more and more money. High risk speculators are gamblers who use the stock market as their casino.

Q. Can you explain?

A. Like gambling, high risk trading in the financial markets becomes an addiction. A gambler at a roulette table experiences the thrill of a winning bet. As the thrill lasts only a short time , a player will put his winnings back on the table, hoping to recapture the exhilaration again and again by doubling and then quadrupling his money etc. This goes on until the player's luck changes and he loses all he has won the last time he doubles his bet.

Q. So the big market crash in 1929 came as thousands of gamblers lost their shirts in the stock market?

A. Yes, and as the gamblers lost everything, they could no longer pay debts owed on houses, businesses and other loans. This set off a domino effect. Banks who had lent money to people who had been able to repay their loans before the crash now had to write off the loans because their borrowers no longer had an income. For so many of the banks and their customers bankruptcy was the only option. People became desperate for money to keep farms producing, to keep businesses going and to get food on the table.

Q. Isn't that an oversimplification? Weren't there those among the wealthy who managed to hang on to their money and property because they were simply better at financial management? Why should they care about reckless gamblers who lost everything? Would there be a risk that the disciplined and wise who have survived the economic collapse might experience losses of their own?

A. Perhaps not at first. But if not stopped, economic decay brings social collapse. Without recovery, cities eventually turn into ghost towns, people die of starvation, communicable diseases begin to ravage the country, and eventually even the wealthiest of the wealthy would be unable to escape ravaging pandemics.

Q. So ultimately, it is to the interest of the wealthy to have a prosperous country with healthy people?

A. Without a doubt.

Q. So how did the country pull out of depression?

A. When businesses, factories and farms no longer had any cash to stay operational, they looked to the government for a rescue. The government, in order to bring society back on its feet, created jobs through public works projects and other means.

Q. So how did the government get the money?

A. In 1932 the government raised the marginal tax rate on $100,000 that had been lowered to 25% back up to 56% and this made it possible to finance a recovery. People got back to work as dams, roads and public buildings were built, and after the end of World War II, ordinary people managed to find prosperity as the government educated returning soldiers through the G.I. bill.

Q. How was it possible to get the money to educate millions of returning soldiers?

A. It was possible because the government imposed a marginal tax rate of 92% on $100,000 in 1945. A rate of 89% in 1946 stayed in place until 1954. Then the rate was lowered gradually until it hovered around 75% through the early 1960s. It was a time during which the U.S. became the greatest industrial power of the world, with the result that not just the rich, but everyone got richer.

---Tax data based on figures provided by the Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

How Can We Pull Out of the Recession?

Q. What is a recession?

A. It is a period in which the middle and working class have less money to spend, and as a result, those who earn money when consumers buy things also earn less. As car dealers sell fewer and fewer cars, they have to let go of sales associates, and the sales associates in turn can't afford to buy furniture, and the furniture stores close causing more layoffs etc. etc.

Q. It sounds like the general public is running out of money. If almost nobody has any money, how can the economy keep going?

A. Well, it can't. People draw on their reserves, and once these are gone more and more activity comes to a halt.

Q. What about the government? Can't the government create jobs?

A. Yes, it can. It can create public works projects.

Q. So why can't the government start more and more projects and get people get back to work so that the recession ends?

A. As long as government infuses more and more money into society, there will be more and more activity. And more activity does mean more jobs. More jobs gives people more money to spend. As more is spent more taxes are collected, and with more tax revenue coming in the government can start even more projects with the result that more people get back on their feet.

Q. But there are those who say it's time to pull back on spending to make the economy healthy. What's wrong with that?

A. A society with a bad economy is like a person who is sick. If someone is sick because he or she is starving or dehydrated, it makes no sense to save on food and water just so his personal budget is balanced. If you need to make debts to keep someone alive, you don't ask whether or not money spent on recovery increases size of the person's debt.

Q. Are you trying to suggest the government should simply print more money and hand it out to the public without any limitations?

A. That is not the way to go. The government has incredible investigative and research capacities. A major part of the money lost in the last two to three years was lost through high risk speculation. Speculation is a form of gambling, and gambling there is always a winner and a loser. Government investigators and researchers need to find out who the winners in the financial contest are, and where they are hiding their money.

Q. This just does not make sense. Can you give me one example of who might be a winner in the market collapse we have just seen?

A. Examples of winners are those who made bets that the housing market would fall. Betting in the financial market place is done through derivatives. A speculator buys bonds or funds that pay off in case of a market fall. Once the market has actually fallen, he quietly picks up his cash. Most people don't know such speculators exist, let alone how they operate. The source of the money lost through gambling is to a great extent money gotten from people who listened to deceptive investment advice. Deception is a first cousin to fraud. Money fraudulently acquired is stolen money, and once stolen goods end up with an even unknowing buyer the goods once found are to be returned to the person they were stolen from.

Q. Are you saying that those who gambled against people's investments are in actuality beneficiaries of stolen goods?

A. Maybe not directly within legal terms. But they are benefiting from the hardships that were bestowed on innocent people. Without fraud and deception, the gamblers betting on a market downturn would have had nothing to gamble with. So the government needs to find creative means to get back that which was stolen.

Life Is But a Stage

Life is but a stage, and we are all actors. As actors we assume characters, and as characters we relate to other performers in accordance with the parts we and they play. We may feel love or hate, respect or contempt, or any other emotion toward others as the script demands. To be an effective actor, you need to believe in and then become your own character and relate to others as being real. If the script demands that you detest one of the other persons on the stage you need to do so for the sake of the performance. But the danger is that if you very strongly identify with the character you are playing, you may become the on-stage character off-stage.

Can this create a problem in one's life? Yes, if you forget that you and your fellow actors are only playing parts demanded by the script. If the scenario calls for your character to hate another character in the performance, you need to remember that what takes place on stage is only an act, and that your fellow actors are human beings with their own paths through life.

Is the University of California Afflicted by Morbid Obesity?

University of California fees continue to increase because the university as a quasi-corporate person is suffering from morbid obesity--more and more money is demanded to nourish fat cells that do little more than add weight to an organism struggling to move into the twenty-first century.

In a discussion with some friends I asked a basic question: Students are protesting in California and elsewhere about sharply increasing tuition they have to pay, but professors and teaching assistants have gotten miniscule pay raises if any at all. Where is the money going? Who gets the money?

You don't need to look far. Mark Yudof, the chancellor of UC gets compensation of $828,000. http://encyclopedia.vbxml.net/Mark_Yudof. Would he be able to function for half as much, let's say around the salary level of $400,000, which is what President Obama gets? What about Kenneth M. Jones, Interim Chief Operating Officer UCSF Medical Center getting a raise of $58,625 to $500,723 in the summer of 2009, and Linda P. B. Katehi appointed as Chancellor, UC Davis at annual salary of $400,000, an increase of 27% percent above that of predecessor Larry N. Vanderhoef? www.upte.org/about/press/2009-07-23.pdf How are those exorbitant salaries and pay hikes being financed with other than with student tuition increases?

Could the money be coming from wealthy alumni giving more to the universities?

Not at this time. Donations to non-profits have taken a downturn since the beginning of the current recession.

Who are the "powers-to-be" that decide to give increases to administrators while students are being squeezed to pay more and more in tuition?

They are the members of the Board of Regents. They are generally wealthy members of the business community and other persons of prosperity

How do they justify compensation increases to those who are already more than adequately paid?

The general reasoning among regents is that administrators "need" to be paid more and more so that they don't leave for other jobs.

Who decides and how is it decided what makes a good administrator?
Higher ranking administrators evaluate both lower ranking ones and candidates wishing to become part of the system.

And what do they look for?

The ones on the higher rungs look for those candidates on the lower rungs who make them feel good about what they are n o t doing.

What are they n o t doing?

They are "not-doing" anything of any value that would improve the mission of an educational institution, to be specific, discovery and learning.

What keeps students and the public from doing anything to limit administrative bodies' taking funds that should be used to educate students?

There are several possible answers. The public is not aware how much of the money is going to waste at the top of educational institutions. If a university is compared to a human being, it needs to be fed. Money is the symbol for the food needed to keep it nourished. In a health-conscious human being calories are used to nourish a healthy mobile body in which exercise keeps muscles toned and the mind alert. But when someone takes in food indiscriminately and then does little more than watch TV, the calories are turned into body fat. Education money that goes into the pockets of overpaid administrators only makes for morbid academic obesity.

Why can't people see this?

Administrators tend to keep their distance. They wear suits and ties and hide in offices and conference rooms where they don't mingle with students and faculty.

What does wearing suits have to do with it?

If someone wears a suit, it is assumed that he is of a higher standing, that he/she is important enough that an appointment is needed to talk to him or her. Those who are higher and less accessible feel themselves to be aristocrats who merit more pay simply because they are part of an "upper class."

--I am aware that a lot more needs to be explored in regard to these issues, so I would greatly welcome any questions and commentary.

We Have to Win in Afghanistan: There is no Choice but to Stop the Taliban "Gendercide"

The invasion of Iraq under Bush and Blair was and still is an incredibly serious mistake. By contrast I believe it was right to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan, but it was a disastrous mistake to allow the situation in the country to deteriorate to the point where the Taliban were able to reassume power.

Why is it so important for the U.S. to stay in Afghanistan and win? It is not the threat of the potential loss of an oil or gas pipe line that would be a loss to western economic interests, it is the threat of "Gendercide." A woman forced to wear a burka Taliban style has neither the freedom to be seen, heard, nor to speak to anyone without her owner's permission. She is no longer a human being in the social sense.

Without freedom of movement, a woman is nothing more than a member of the living dead. For Americans to permit the Taliban to make their women into zombies right under the noses of U.S. troops would be to allow the Islamic fundamentalists of Afghanistan to present a model of success for the rest of the underdeveloped world--there is no choice but for the U.S. to win this particular war.